The usual suspects are outraged that the new Miss USA, Kara McCullough, thinks that health care is a privilege not a right. Her father is a retired Marine and she holds a BS in Chemistry from the University of South Carolina. She works as an emergency preparedness specialist for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (No, that does not make her a nuclear scientist as some of the press hasreported.)
Health care of course is neither a right nor a privilege but a commodity. Someone always has to pay for it. To say that health care is a right is to say that person A has a right to compel other people to pay for A’s health care under all circumstances, and such a “right” has never existed and will never exist on this planet. Government schemes for “free” healthcare always involve the rationing of health care and the denial of it under certain circumstances. A privilege may be taken away and health care is almost never denied if it is paid for. Kudos to Ms. McCullough, nonetheless, for actually thinking about her answer instead of rattling off the politically correct canned response.
Her answer about feminism was also a cut above the usual mindless platitudes expected of would be beauty queens: Continue Reading
Ever since Congressman Paul Ryan announced his budget plan, claiming that it was inspired by his understanding of Catholic social teaching (CST) in general and subsidiarity in particular, old debates about the meaning of CST have flared up once again. Michael Sean Winters of NCR blasted Ryan’s conception of “subsidiarity”; then Stephen White of Catholic Vote critiqued some of Winter’s own oversimplifications. Since everyone and their aunt in the Catholic blogosphere will weigh in on this at some point, I’ll get it over with and throw in my two-cents now.
First: I do believe that some of Ryan’s statements are oversimplifications. For instance, he claimed that subsidiarity and federalism were more or less synonyms for one another. They are not. Stephen White pointed out that these concepts are complimentary, however, and they are.
Secondly: Winters, and he is not alone in this, repeats Vatican statements about “access” to health care as if they were an exact equivalent with Obamacare or other types of government-run healthcare schemes. As White pointed out, Winters presents his leftist policy preferences as non-negotiable points of CST.
Third: I think the entire framework of this discussion needs a serious overhaul.
Update III: The USCCB Pro-Life Director Richard Doerflinger and Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey agree with me that this “accommodation” or “compromise” is unacceptable. Sadly Sr. Keehan of the the Catholic Health Associate found this “satisfactory”. It looks like Obama will be happy that Sr. Keehan is on board. Of course, Planned Parenthood and Sr. Keehan agree.
Update II: Rumor confirmed. Insurance, that Religious Institutions pay into, will provide contraception, ie, it is still a violation of the First Amendment.
Update I: Rumor is that “Hawaii” compromise will be offered, but the bishops have already rejected this. So basically it’s a poor attempt at stalling and not really offering a solution.
The buzz this morning is that Obama is “caving in” to the pressure and will announce a “compromise” today at 12:15pm Eastern.
The news reports are saying that Religious Organizations won’t have to offer birth control, only the insurance companies that these Religious Organizations provide will offer birth control.
Yeah, that’s the compromise.
If these reports are true, this is dead on arrival. Changing the meaning of the words won’t do it.